Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft said that while he didn’t want to do it, he had to remind people of how “severe” the situation is.

A top Republican official in Missouri is threatening to remove President Joe Biden from appearing on the ballot as retaliation for the determination in two other states that Donald Trump doesn’t qualify because he “engaged in insurrection.”

“What has happened in Colorado & Maine is disgraceful & undermines our republic,” Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft wrote on the social media site X on Friday. “While I expect the Supreme Court to overturn this, if not, Secretaries of State will step in & ensure the new legal standard for @realDonaldTrump applies equally to @JoeBiden!”

Ashcroft’s post came shortly after the Supreme Court agreed to review a decision by Colorado’s high court that found Trump could be barred from the state’s primary ballot because of his actions leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

  • ipkpjersi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Neat, I didn’t know Biden also engaged in insurrection. This guy seems very wise!

    • Rinox@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      10 months ago

      You don’t, but they are certain of it. It’s clearly been an insurrection all these years, since when the democrats colluded with the lizard people to administer the vaccine and steal the elections. It’s obvious if you think about it.

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      Insurrection doesn’t seem to be very strongly defined.

      Maybe simply running against an incumbent president is insurrectionalist.

      • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        That’s like if you assaulted someone, and then claiming you didn’t assault them because you think assault isn’t strongly defined.

        It’s just a very stupid and slimy way of saying you think laws shouldn’t apply to you.

        • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          No, assault is strongly defined with a large amount of case law to back it up. It is also obvious who committed it.

          Violent storming of the Capitol is insurrectionalist and obvious (like assault)

          Incitement to insurrection is lacking in case law, and open to interpretation.

          I don’t know why you think this law is applicable to me personally.

          • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 months ago

            Violent storming of the Capitol is insurrectionalist and obvious (like assault)

            That was not your original statement but it’s a lot more correct now, and if we can agree that an obvious insurrection is an insurrection, that’s a very good start.

            We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore

            I don’t see any honest case to be made that this isn’t incitement of insurrection.

            Additionally, the 14th Amendment does not require you to prove it was an incitement, it’s enough to provide aid or comfort to the insurrectionists. Of which there are numerous examples, including Trump repeatedly offering to pardon the insurrectionists.

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        The current SCOTUS claims to be using the “common meaning of words” as their interpretation mechanism for the Constitution.

        Assuming they have any bit of consistency whatsoever, the common meaning of words gives at least prima facie argument against Trump being able to run with zero argument against Biden being able to run.

        And lucky us, the current SCOTUS has not really shown loyalty to Trump as a person. Here’s hoping that sticks around.

        • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          the current SCOTUS has not really shown loyalty to Trump as a person

          I’m more worried about future legitimate candidates being excluded. I’m not defending Trump in particular.

          • cheesebag@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Unfortunately, Republicans don’t need Democrats to invent ways for them to be fascist, they’re quite capable of finding opportunities on their own